The Genii Forum

That was hard to watch.

I would be curious what the lawyers out there think of the plaintiff's lawyer's examination of DC. He seemed overly hostile in tone and sarcastic ("when they ask you softballs", "Are you going to answer any of my questions?"). The lawyer keeps seemingly asking for absolutes, and DC keeps trying to outthink the question like he's looking for traps. I'm no legal expert and have never been put on trial, but I have been on a jury and don't remember it being this frustrating to watch.

Also, it seems like a real bummer for Kenner and Copperfield to receive such great honors from the AMA the same week they had to deal with this.

I have never seen such uncomfortable shifty looking witnesses. One would think that people in the entertainment business would be a bit more articulate.

Three earlier streams of testimony can be found here:

https://livestream.com/wildabouttrial/events/8158079

The earliest one, marked "David Copperfield Trial Day 1 Part 2" is particularly interesting as it basically outlines DC's defense (it starts about the 8 minute mark).

Cross-examination isn't supposed to be fun for the witness. The plaintiff's lawyer is trying to poke holes in the defendant's argument. It also works the other way when the plaintiff is being cross-examined.

Abraham Lincoln was representing a defendant who was being sued for personal injury to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed Lincoln's client's actions had injured his arm and he could no longer raise it above his head.

The crafty Lincoln asked the guy how high he could raise his arm and the guy raised it about shoulder level--and before the guy lowered his arm, Lincoln jumped in and asked him how high he could raise his arm BEFORE the accident--and the guy raised it over his head.

Case closed.

And sometimes cross examination can be no fun for the lawyer if he is faced with a clever witness. I got great amusement reading about Justice Jackson losing his temper with Hermann Goering after trying to cross examine him at the Nuremberg trials.

Apparently the culprit that caused Mr. Cox to slip was a patch of construction dust on the floor?

This thing is total disgrace and a sham.

erdnasephile wrote:That was hard to watch.

I would be curious what the lawyers out there think of the plaintiff's lawyer's examination of DC. He seemed overly hostile in tone and sarcastic ("when they ask you softballs", "Are you going to answer any of my questions?"). The lawyer keeps seemingly asking for absolutes, and DC keeps trying to outthink the question like he's looking for traps. I'm no legal expert and have never been put on trial, but I have been on a jury and don't remember it being this frustrating to watch.

Current thinking among the better trial lawyer advocacy teachers with whom I've studied or heard lecture is that this kind of conduct should be avoided because it comes across as bullying and plays into stereotypes about "ugly" lawyers. It is rarely attractive for a lawyer to "beat up" a non-lawyer.

- Jeffrey
www.cowan-law.com

I was foreman on a civil trial in New York in the mid 80s. One of the attorneys was rude, belligerent, and attacked several witnesses quite strongly. He lost. It wasn't close. We all thought that his antagonism was a substitute for a case, not an enhancement to it. I was on another jury in a very similar civil trial in Ventura a couple years ago. Both lawyers treated all the witnesses with a respectful tone, no matter how pointed their questions were. It was much closer.

I think some lawyers never get over watching courtroom scenes on TV.

Thanks, guys--those are interesting perspectives.

I read somewhere that juries vote with their hearts and use their minds to support what they feel. Sounds like if they decide they hate your lawyer you are fighting an uphill battle.

Check out the movie, "Inherit The Wind."